Despite my respect for many of the advocates of the SMP program and the erstwhile DELTO system, in my opinion there is no effective substitute for the formation that can ONLY happen in the culture of theological immersion found in a real, on-campus seminary program. A bunch of guys studying remotely around the country and serving in their home congregations, no matter how motivated, no matter how highly-connected our cyberworld, and no matter how conscientious the local mentor-pastor, is just not the same as a seminary in what can be offered to and received by the student/pastoral candidate.

Also, what does it say about a person’s fitness for the demands of the ministry (particularly placing one’s self in the service of Christ’s Church) if he is not willing to leave the comfort and familiarity of his hometown environment and his current job to get the best possible academic and theological preparation, and then to serve wherever the Church would see fit to call him? That’s putting one’s hand to the plow and not just looking back, but more like attempting to plow with one foot still on the back porch! Maybe I should decide where around the country I’d prefer to “do ministry” and then re-apply to the SMP program? No, I love my parish and its people, and I can’t be “re-ordained,” anyway.

Still, it’s bothersome that rather than adequately supporting effective seminary programs so men wouldn’t hesitate to attend for fear of financial ruin and thus violation of their vocations of husband and father, we continue to pour money into things like Ablaze and its parasitic spawn. We don’t need more churches, transformed churches, or natural churches–we already have lots of available seating around the synod last I checked, and we can add more services or re-distribute parishes if need be (that’d be one Romanist idea that might actually be useful, now that I think about it…). What we really need is more well-trained, full-fledged pastors proclaiming Law and Gospel and properly administering the sacraments, so that the laity are motivated to share the Good News with others, start new missions, etc., not because they get credit for it on some hokey scoreboard, but because they are full of joy at the salvation in Christ that has come even to sinners such as us. But that requires greater trust in the efficacy of the Word, rather than in the attraction of man-made programs.

Both gifts and endowments have been hit hard by the recession. SL has more infrastructure upgrading needs than FW because the campus is some 30 years older. Others point out that living costs are lower in FW, while centrality of location and urban amenities, including several other institutions of higher education, favor SL. Talk of seminary consolidation has been around for a long time, but many still remember that having two seminaries was an important factor in 1974. Money (or the lack of it) tends to awaken discussions and ideas that otherwise lie dormant. One hopes and prays that money will not be the primary determining factor in deciding the future of LCMS seminary education.

To this prodding, the speaker mentioned that in his opinion both sems ought be closed. I couldn’t tell if he didn’t mean it almost as a joke. Yet he then added the business of using the Concordia campuses (with the sems as Divinity Schools attached). So at a minimum he had considered the matter previously.

Somewhere in my grey matter I recall that such a move requires a synodical convention’s vote. This, as I remember, was what happened with St. John’s, Winfield.

By the way, Pr. O’ Donnel was fantastic in gently making the point that legitimate public knowledge of the financial demise of St. Louis, and of the synod, is greatly lacking in detail.

Jim Strawn

And the second is to point out what an utter mess we would have (as if we didn’t have a mess already) if we went to the Divinity School model. This would not produce pastors who were more pliant and in line with the Synod’s policies, but to fragment and create even more divergent and conflicting groups and ideologies within our Synod. I recall Dr. Barry mentioning at a convocation years ago that the he was discussing some of the troubles he was having with the Bishop of the ELCA, to which the ELCA president replied “what do you say I trade my nine seminaries for your two?” Barry laughed and politely told the Bishop ‘no thanks.’

Understood. And I agree. I think there also has to be some spacial difference as well though. The “college experience” which is alive and well at our Concordias, is not condusive to pastoral formation, i.e. parties, college drama, etc. Now that I’ve said that, seminary is not exactly real life either. But overall I agree. The concordias would need real scools of divinity, similar to having a school of medicine, business, etc. I appreciate your response, its making me think about the situation a little deeper.

Let me be clear. My vision of a divinity school is not adding a few courses. It would be a rigorous, graduate academic program. Obviously, MDiv training would include more than just the courses. As I stated above, if divinity school is code language for 10 more undergrad courses, then I am against the idea.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3820916/Not-Your-Fathers-Seminary

Hasn’t St. Louis been listening to this guy for some time now? It makes you wonder if Sweet is required reading for Synodicrats.

As far as getting an MDiv from a concordia university, the academic caliber of that is one thing. The pastoral formation aspect is another. I was not prepared to be a pastor in Christ’s church when I graduated from Seward. And a few more courses would not have helped that. College is College. Seminary is not college. It’s boot camp.

That’s my two cents at least.